By Richard Ratcliffe
Last Tuesday, Ed Milliband addressed the Labour conference for the first time as party leader and made a concerted effort to break from his party’s time in power. During the speech he highlighted his belief that Labour had made a string of errors on issues including the Iraq war, tuition fees, immigration and the economy.
While some may be pleased to hear him talk with such candour, is it really possible for established politicians to break from the past in this way? In addition to comprehensive online news archives, websites like www.whatdotheyknow.com and www.theyworkforyou.com allow voters to easily access a range of information right down to the way MPs vote on individual issues.
For example, by checking Milliband’s voting record, we discover that despite his conviction the invasion of Iraq was wrong, he has consistently voted against an investigation into it. Further analysis reveals Milliband rarely rebels against his party, which may lead some to conclude he probably would have towed the party line, had he been an MP in 2003 when the Iraq war vote was held.
These may not be groundbreaking revelations, but they do give an insight into the gap between what politicians say and how they act, and into the increasing transparency that the internet is bringing to the UK’s politics. When combined with the reach that social media can provide, these tools give ordinary voters the unprecedented ability to hold inconsistent politicians to account.
Comments